H4ow to count Luk???

[Jean]

Originally Posted by David

I agree Jean. Your old keris appears presently as 6, but could have easily have lost a luk through either time or intention.

Hello David,
I agree that the old blade most probably had 7 luk initially and was shortened due to wear.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, to my eyes both the keris posted by you as examples of possibly even luk keris are not in even the slightest degree able to be interpreted as other than a 7 luk keris and 13 luk keris when using the current convention of count.

The form of the point on the 13 luk is very usual for this style of blade and the 7 luk blade is simply not able to be counted as anything other than 7.

I do have a Pengging blade that could be counted as an even luk blade, because the final luk takes the point back towards the back of the blade, and the blade is not eroded to the degree where we could plead that this has been caused by the passage of time. However, the current convention of count (CCC) demands that the count finish on the same side that it started, ie, the gandhik side or front of the blade, so even where you cannot see any clear turn back to the front of the blade you are compelled to add the additional non-existent wave.

In the most simple of terms:- if we follow the CCC it is impossible to produce a luk count that gives us an even number. Just can't be done.

Incidentally, how long is the 7 luk keris?

[rasdan]

G'day Alan,

Regarding your Pengging keris. Do you have any idea on why does the last luk was made in such a way?

If we assume that Jeans keris is not corroded badly, can we say that it have 5 luks if we count according to the Hindu counting method?

[A. G. Maisey]

No Rasdan, I do not. It seems to be a not particularly unusual characteristic in a Pengging keris, but why it was done I have no idea at all.

Re Jean's keris, yes, if we used the alternate method, it would be 5 luk.

[rasdan]

In that case, do you think that it is OK for us to assume that some Pengging's Empus adopted the Hindu luk counting method?

I have seen a positively absolutely "even" luk keris only once - on a Sulawesi Bugis keris. In Bugis culture they have 5 genders. Male, female, male but lived as female, female but lived as male and the last one is Bissu which is neither male or female or we can say that they have both attributes.

I am thinking that an "even" luk Bugis keris probably belonged to a Bissu, but if this is true then we should be able to see at least several examples as there had been countless Bissus since the dawn of time.

Probably only some Bissu decide to have an "even" luk keris. Or maybe it does not belong to a Bissu, but the maker used the Hindu luk counting system?

[A. G. Maisey]

Rasdan, I'm sorry, but I do not like to engage in speculation involving things I know nothing about. I know nothing about the relevant cultural practices of the Bugis people. I know nothing of the matters of which you write.

Regarding Pengging keris makers. Pengging was concurrent with Majapahit, but that does not mean that a keris that is classifiable as Pengging in accord with the Javanese system of tangguh necessarily originated in the time and/or area of Pengging. The Majapahit court was not exclusive of Islam, and Pengging was established by a Muslim official from the court of Majapahit.

Regarding "positively absolutely even luk" keris.

If the luk were counted using the current convention of count as practiced in Jawa it is a total impossibility to count an even number of luk.

Why is it so?

Because this convention demands that you finish the count on the same side that you started; if there is no luk you simply add one. You are not permitted to complete the count with an even number. We are dealing with a convention, not with an actuality.

This is what I have been specifically taught by two very senior keris people. Its not my idea, I'm only repeating what I've been told.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jean, to my eyes both the keris posted by you as examples of possibly even luk keris are not in even the slightest degree able to be interpreted as other than a 7 luk keris and 13 luk keris when using the current convention of count.
The form of the point on the 13 luk is very usual for this style of blade and the 7 luk blade is simply not able to be counted as anything other than 7.
In the most simple of terms:- if we follow the CCC it is impossible to produce a luk count that gives us an even number. Just can't be done.
Incidentally, how long is the 7 luk keris?

Hello Alan,
Thank you for your reply.
I acknowledge that according to the CCC the small blade should be interpreted and counted as 7 luks and although I do respect conventions and religions I am sorry that I can see and count only 6!
The blade is 28.5 cm long, it is a skeleton blade which probably had a normal lenght of about 35 cm originally. I have shown it alongwith another very old blade with 7 luks and a similar ganja of exactly the same size (7.6 cm long, probably a bit longer originally). In my view the short blade had probably 9 waves originally and not 7, what do tou think?
Best regards
Jean

[rasdan]

If we set the current convention aside, what do you presume is the actuality of luk number Alan? Does the age (not necessarily the tangguh) and the maker (empu or pande) makes a difference? I would imagine the Pengging keris makers doesn't have to be a Hindu to adopt a Hindu system probably?

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, as I wrote in my response to Rasdan:- "we are dealing with convention, not actuality"

If we are to study any cultural artefact, a large part of that study involves learning the way in which the people in the society or societies concerned see and understand that artefact. We cannot claim to have any knowledge nor understanding of a cultural artefact unless we are able to understand that artefact in the same way that the people in the culture concerned understand it.

This understanding must always involve an understanding that governs the way in which the artefact is seen and understood by the people who are acknowledged authorities within the relevant culture.

Now, if we are not a part of the society or culture concerned, we can always invent our own way of understanding any cultural artefact, and that way may serve our purpose better than the accepted conventions within the culture that owns the artefact. But by using our own way of understanding we have consciously taken the decision that the understanding of the artefact within its originating culture is not relevant to our purpose.

So now let us consider this matter of the number of luk in a keris blade.

The currently applied convention used to count luk in a keris blade demands that the count begin at the first depression in the blade above the gandhik, and this is the first luk. The second luk is the first depression in the blade on the opposite edge of the blade, that is, the first depression above the wadidang. Counting continues by crossing the blade diagonally until the point of the blade is reached. The count must complete on the same side of the blade that it began. Observance of the rule that sets down how to count blade luk demands this. If there is no blade depression, or the shape of the point section of the blade is such that no clear luk can be seen, this is completely unimportant:- the count must finish on the same side that it began. All keris must have an odd number of luk, whether they actually have that odd number of luk, or not, so where there is no luk the convention demands that we add a luk.

The convention I have outlined above is the current convention that applies in Jawa. I do not know when I first became aware of it, but I do know that it was very clearly stated to me by two men who were both Empus in the Karaton Surakarta.

It is possible that luk are counted in different ways in different societies.

I recently proposed that in early Hindu-Jawa, keris luk were counted in a way that results in a total of two luk less that the number obtained by using the current method of counting luk. But that method is no longer employed in Jawa.

It seems that at one time in Brunei luk were counted by counting every instance where the edge of the blade deviated from a straight line, so if this method were to be applied to most 7 luk Javanese blades the result would be that the blade had 14 luk.

Another way of counting luk is to count both negative and positive depressions in the blade. If we apply this method to most Javanese 7 luk blades the result will be 11 luk.

There are possibly other ways in which luk can be counted, but all these other ways are not relevant to the convention applied in Javanese keris culture.

No matter what our field of study may be, there are certain conventions that we must follow if we wish to be taken seriously. Engineers are required to think and act in certain ways in the practice of their profession, as are lawyers, accountants, physicians, carpenters, plumbers and people who carry boxes and push brooms. Each profession demands that those who practice that profession think in a particular way that is recognised as correct within the relevant field of knowledge. This is the rationale behind the concept of education. Education is only in part about imparting knowledge, that knowledge in and of itself is not particularly important, it will always exist in other places and can be accessed by anybody, not just the professional in the field. The truly important element of education is that it teaches the student to think in a particular way.

It is no different with keris:- we must observe the relevant conventions and think in a particular way if we are to be taken seriously by others in the field of keris study. Certainly we can always invent our own rules that may suit our own purposes, but in most cases it is probably best to use those rules only for our own personal purposes.

In response to your question, yes it would seem that the blade under discussion did originally have 2 more luk.

[A. G. Maisey]

Again I must apologise to you Rasdan, I'm not very clear on exactly what you are asking here, but I'll answer what I think you are asking.

If we are talking about the number of luk in a Javanese keris blade there is only one way to determine that number, and that way bears no relationship to actuality:- it is part of a system of belief.

This being so, it is impossible for me to answer in terms of actual luk, only in terms of perceived luk.

In any system of belief we do not deviate from the conventions that are acknowledged as correct within that system.

Keris classifiable as Pengging are not like other Javanese blades in a number of ways, they are recognised as being quite peculiar in a number of respects. Why this is so I simply do not know.

The time and place where a keris was manufactured does result in it having certain identifiable characteristics, and this is also often true of keris made by different makers.

Whether luk are counted by the way I proposed as being used in early Jawa, or whether they are counted by the way that is used now, the only difference is that the number of luk will vary by two.

My proposition is dependent upon a hierarchical societal structure that cannot exist within Islam.

[ariel]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jean, as I wrote in my response to Rasdan:- "we are dealing with convention, not actuality"

All keris must have an odd number of luk, whether they actually have that odd number of luk, or not, so where there is no luk the convention demands that we add a luk.

....

Whether luk are counted by the way I proposed as being used in early Jawa, or whether they are counted by the way that is used now, the only difference is that the number of luk will vary by two.



.

Forgive me, Alan, but that does not make much sense to me. If the keris has an odd number of luk, it has the odd number of luk. And if the even number, - then the even.

If I have 2 legs, I have 2 legs. If I lose one, no convention would prove that I am not a handicapped person. One cannot state the desired outcome and then manipulate the data.

This "convention" sounds a lot like Marx Brothers : " Who do you believe, me or your own cheating eyes?"

Also, isn't it true, that if your method is correct, any keris with an even number of luk by the "old convention" will still have an even number? 12-2 =10, after all.

[A. G. Maisey]

Once again Ariel, you are absolutely correct.

However you are correct only from the view point of a person who has not yet learnt the elements of the belief system that governs an understanding of the Javanese keris.

In this Forum it has often been repeated that an understanding of the keris is dependent upon an understanding of the belief system that is attached to the keris. The whole thing is based on belief. Everything that is of any importance in the world of the Javanese keris is based upon belief. It is a field of knowledge that has quite specific rules attached to it, rules that are not unlike the rules that govern major religions:- we cannot understand any major religion by reverting to logic. The same is true of the keris, logic has no part in its understanding.

The way in which the waves, ie, luk, are counted in a Javanese keris blade is no less dependent upon this belief system than is anything else in the world of the keris.

Of course, if we wish to step outside the rules that govern this understanding for Javanese people, then we can make our own rules and decide for ourselves how we wish to count those waves. This then would be our own understanding, not the understanding of the people who originated and own this cultural icon, the keris.

However, such an approach would seem to be out of step with the approach taken by collectors in any field of ethnography that I can think of, where the collectors and students who live in societies that are foreign to the society that is home to the object collected or studied, do strive to try to understand the object of their interest in terms that are in synch with the understanding of the people of that originating society.

As an example we could perhaps consider the field of nihonto. Have collectors in this field followed their own guidelines, or have they endeavored to understand the way in which the Japanese people approach the subject?

If we wish to understand the keris we really have no alternative but to try insofar as we are able to understand the perspective of the Javanese people.

But if we only wish to collect the object and divorce that object from any understanding of it, then we can take any approach to its collection that we wish.